DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 322 285 UD 027 713

AUTHOR Bempechat, JanineTITLE The Role of Parent Involvement in Children's Academic

Achievement: A Review of the Literature. Trends andIssues No. 14.

INSTITUTION Columbia Univ., New York, N.Y. Inst. for Urban andMinority Education.; ERIC Clearinghouse on UrbanEducation, New York, N.Y.

SPONS AGENCY Department of Education, Washington, DC. Office ofPlanning, Budget, and Evaluation.; Office ofEducational Research and Improvement (ED),Washington, DC.

PUB DATE Jun 90CONTRACT R188062013NOTE 21p.

AVAILABLE FROM ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education, Institute forUrban and Minority Education, Box 40, TeachersCollege, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027.

PUB TYPE Information Analyses - ERIC Information AnalysisProducts (071) -- Information Analyses (070)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Academic Aspiration; *Child Development; Cognitive

Development; Elementary Education; LiteratureReviews; *Parent Child RelatiOnship; ParentEducation; *Parent Influence; Parent Participation;Parents as Teachers; *Parent Student Relationship;Social Development; *Teacher Role

ABSTRACT

This literature review examines patterns ofparent-child involvement that foster high academic achievement anddescriLes effective parent involvement programs. Parents affect theirchildren's academic achievement through cognitive socialization, thedevelopment of basic intelligence; and academic socialization, thedevelopment of attitudes and motives essential for school learning.Cognitive socialization is developed through the following parentpractices: (1) encouraging active learniL,; (2) developingpsychological distancing; (3) creating a context for new learning;and (4) structuring information to provide a "scaffold" for problemsolving. Academic socialization is associated with the followingparent practices: (1) attributing success to ability; (2)

implementing supportive strategies; (3) communicating highexpectations for academic success; and (4) expecting high careeraspirations. While cognitive and academic socialization arefacilitated by middle-class status, parent education programs canprovide lower-class parents with the skills needed to enhance theirchildren's achievement while improving their own job skils. Teacherattitudes and support are crucial to effective parent involvementprograms, which include the following strategies: (1) developingfrequent contact between parent and teacher; (2) helping parentscreate home environments conducive to learning; (3) using parents asresources in schools; and (4) involving parents in school governance.A list of 68 references is appended. (FMW)

THE ROLE OF PARENT INVOLVEMENTIN CHILDREN'S ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT:

A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Janine BempechatHarvard University

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION°thee of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

o This document has been reproduced asrecmued from the person Or orgamtahonohchnahnp rL

0 Mmor changes have been made to script/wereproduction Quahty

Pantsolnew or OpmeOrIS stated m thd dOCthment do not necessary represent Whoa!OERI post on or poky

ERICI.Cleannghotilion Urban 5duVation --11

Institute for Urbsevelid MinoiftyJEducetion.Sox40,.Teachers.,Colloiss, Cofumbia University

New Yo,rk, Phis York 10027.

3EST COPY AMIABLE

THE ROLE OF PARENT INVOLVEMENTIN CHILDREN'S ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT:

A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Janine BempechatHarvard University

Trends and Issues No. 14ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education

Institute for Urban and Minority EducationJune 19%

3

ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban EducationBox 40, Teachers CollegeColumbia UniversityNew York, New York 10027212/678-3433

Director. Erwin RamanAssistant Director: Robin Johnson UtseyManaging Editor. Wendy Schwartz

This publication was produced by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education withsupport from the Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation Service, U.S.Department of Education. The Clearinghouse is funded by the Office of EducationalResearch and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under contract numberR188062013, and Teachers College, Columbia University. The opinions expressedin this publication do not necessarily reflect the position or policies of OERI or theDepartment of Education.

Copies are available from the ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education.

Copies are also available from the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS),3900 Wheeler Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22304, 1-800-227-3742, both on microficheand paper. Contact the Clearinghouse or EDRS for full ordering information.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 1

Socialization Practices That Foster Academic Achievement 2Cognitive Socialization 2Academic Socialization 4

Parent Education 7

Parent Involvement Programs: Structure and Effectiveness 8

The Role of the Teacher in Parent Involvement 10

Conclusions 11

References 12

5

THE ROLE OF PARENT INVOLVEMENT INCHILDREN'S ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT:

A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

INTRODUCTION

Considerable research evidence suggests that parents' behaviors with their

childrenstimulation, consistency, moderation, and responsivenessinfluence the

children's cognitive and social development (Clarke-Stewart, 1983). Not surprisingly,

educators and public policymakers continue to pay close attention to the ways in which

parents can foster or inhibit cognitive development and, by extension, academic

achievement (see U.S. Department of Education, 1986). If we can identify parental

practices that are relatively successful in enhancing cognitive growth, we may be able

to help more parents to help their children reach their intellectual potential. This is not

a trivial goal, given simultaneous concerns over the school performance of poor and

minority children (a population that is increasing), and the poor performance of

American children in general, particularly in relation to that of Asian children, such as

the Japanese (McKnight, Crosswhite, Dossey, Kifer, Swafford, Travers, & Cooney,

1987; Pallas, Natriello, & Mc Dill, 1989; Stevenson, Lee, & Stigler, 1986).

This paper examines research on parent involvement in their children's

education by exploring socialization patterns that foster high achievement and

describing the structure and effectiveness of parent involvement programs in this

country. As will be shown, most parents, educators, and educational administrators are

very much in favor of involving parents in children's learning. However, there is little

consensus on which specific behaviors are likely to maximize children's achievement.

1

SOCIALIZATION FRAt,..:CES THAT FOSTER ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

James Coleman's largescale study of the factors that influence academic

achievement showed a stronger correlation between achievement and family

background and environment than between achievement and the quality of the.school

(Coleman, Campbell, Hobson, Mc Partland, Mood, Weinfeld, & York, 1966).

Researchers have since devoted much attention to the ways that parents can foster their

children's school achievement. The literature distinguishes between cognitive

socializationhow parents influence the basic intellectual development of their

children, and academic socializationhow parents influence the development of

attitudes and motives that are essential for school learning (Baker & Stevenson, 1986;

Epstein, in press; Stevenson & Baker, 1987; Milne, Myers, Rosenthal, & Ginsburg,

1986). In some families, the socialization of achievement operates in ways that

produce a relative match between the child's learning skills, attitudes, and motives and

the demands of the school (see Bempechat & Ginsburg, 1989; Epstein, 1989). In other

families, the socialization of achievement operates in such a way that children have

difficulty realizing their full potential, so that they fall behind in their school work and

develop poor attitudes, low expectancies and maladaptive achievement behaviors (e.g.,

learned helplessness). In this section, we examine the literature on cognitive and

academic socialization.

Cognitive Socialization. Early work in this area showed that children's

general level of achievement is associated with such factors as the degree to which

parents provide tutoring when it is needed (Haggard, 1957; Toby, 1957). More

recently, researchers have focused on parent (usually mother) child interactions that

foster or inhibit cognitive development. Some of this work has been heavily

influenced by the writings of Vygotsky and Piaget. The underlying assumption is that

parents function in much the same way as teachers, and their behaviors are contingent

on the particular contexts in which they interact with their children. Instruction is not

necessarily explicit, nor does it have to involve specific techniques or strategies.

Parental teaching is embedded in daily life and occurs in many subtle and indirect

ways. In Hess & Shipman's (1965) now classic observation study, academic

achievement was found to be enhanced by parents who promote an active approach to

learning. In a related vein, McDevitt and Hess (1985) found that parents' direct

control techniques hampered children's cognitive development by influencing their

2

1

self-appraisals. Mothers who made appeals based on their authority had children who

tended to attribute failure to lack of ability and did not attribute success to ability. It

could be that in not allowing more self-exploration, these controlling mothers foster a

lack of confidence in their children.

Irving Sigel (McGillicuddy-DeLisi, DeLisi, Flaugher, & Sigel, 1986; Sigel,

1982; 1985) has proposed that differences in parental distancing strategies may account

for differences in cognitive development. Distancing refers to the psychological

separation of an individual from the immediate present, and is critical in the

development of representational thinking. According to Sigel, parental distancing

strategies, which vary along a continuum from less to more demanding, activate

children's representational thinking processes. For example, observing and labelling

are considered less demanding tasks than proposing alternatives and resolving conflict.

Distancing strategies have been shown to be related to measures of cognitive skill.

In a related vein, Barbara Rogoff and her colleagues have proposed that the

important aspect of the adult-child interaction is the way in which adults bridge the

contexts of novel problems with more familiar ones (Rogoff & Gardner, 1984).

Acccrding to Rogoff, adults organize the occurrence of cognitive tacks for children

(e.g., making a puzzle) and facilitate their learning by monitoring difficulty level,

providing pointers at appropriate places, and modelling mature performance. In this

view, adults implicitly help children create a context in which new information

becomes compatible with current knowledge and skills.

Rogoff argues that the structuring of information serves as a scaffold for the

learner, providing a framework as the learner searches for a problem's solution.

Learners can use the scaffold to support the performance of new aspects of a task that

they may not have been able to handle alone. Rogoff notes that parents may not have

explicit instructional goals, but may structure their interactions with their children in

very subtle ways that promote their children's social and cognitive development. In

the learning process, information and skills are transmitted through pragmatic

communication, and instruction occurs during the interaction. Initial instruction

consists of highly supportive scaffolding, which eventually, through adult

encouragement, gives way to greater participation by the child. Ideally, the child

participates at a comforting but challenging level (the "zone of proximal

3

S

development"), and the adult continually revises the scaffold for learning as the child's

abilities develop. The adult who guides the child's growth in the most optimal way

adjusts his or her support to levels just beyond what the child could manage alone.

Not surprisingly, social class operates to influence cognitive socialization.

Empirical studies of middle- and working-class mothers have shown chat middle-class

mothers exhibit higher levels of questioning in a problem-solving task, and that

middle-class children show higher levels of representational thinking than do working-

class children (Bee, Bernard, Eyres, Gray, Hammond, Spietz, Snyder, & Clark, 1982;

Sigel, 1982; Sigel & Olmstead, 1971). Middle-class mothers are more likely to foster

an active and assertive approach to learning, while lower-class mothers foster a passive

and compliant approach (Hess & Shipman, 1965). The evidence suggests that middle-

class mothers may be more likely than lower-class mothers to structure instruction, or

"scaffold" their children's learning, in a more challenging way by integrating

explanation and demonstration while emphasizing the child's active participation in

learning (see Rogoff & Gardner, 1984).

Academic Socialization. How do parents influence the development of

attitudes and beliefs that are helpful in dealing with instruction in school? A

considerable amount of research evidence is converging to show at parents' attitudes,

expectancies, and beliefs about schooling and learning guide their behavior with their

children and have a causal influence on the children's development of achievement

attitudes and behaviors (Ames & Archer, 1987; Bloom, 1985; Eccles, 1983; Entwisle,

Alexander, Pallas, & Cadigan, 1987; Entwisle & Hayduk, 1988; Haggard, 1957;

McGillicuddy DeLisi, 1985; Marjoribanks, 1979; Miller, 1986; Phillips, 1987;

Seginer, 1983; Sigel, 1985; Wagner & Spratt, 1988; see Bempechat & Wells, 1989;

Dweck & Bempechat, 1983). Parents' beliefs do not necessarily have to be explicit.

Often subtle aspects of beliefs and behaviorof which parents may be unawarecan

be very influential.

For example, research on mathematics achievement has shown that, despite

equivalent levels of performance, mothers' attributions for success and failure differ on

the basis of children's sex (Holloway & Hess, 1985; Dunton, McDevitt, & Hess,

1988). Mothers of boys attribute success to ability and failure to lack of effort.

4

9

Mothers of girls attribute success to effort and failure to lack of ability. Such

differential beliefs have a profound influence on children's self-appraisals of ability,

attroutions for performance, and attitudes towards math. Researchers have found that,

relative to boys, girls have lower self-concept of math ability and believe that math is

harder and of less general value (Eccles, 1983; Parsons, Adler, & Kaczala, 1982).

Moreover, they are less likely to attribute success to ability and more likely to attribute

it to stable effort. They are also more likely to attribute failure to lack of ability. It

appears that children's self-perceptions of math ability appear to be influenced more by

their parents' appraisals than by their own record of achievement. Not surprisingly,

relative to lower-class parents, middle-class parents' academic sociati7alion practices

may operate in ways that are better suited to the demands of the school (Ginsburg,

Bempechat, & Chung, in press; Henderson, 1981). For example, Baker and

Stevenson (1986) found no philosophical differences between high and low SEE'

mothers with regard to the strategies they developed for fostering their children's

achievement. However, high SES mothers were more likely to implement these

strategies than were low SES mothers. That is, they were more likely to monitor

closely their children's school progress and to initiate contact with the school in

response to their child's academic difficulties. In a related vein, Laureau (1987)

argues that "Middle-class culture provides parents with more information about

schooling and promotes social ties among parents in the school community. This

furthers the interdependence between home and school, Working-class culture, on the

other hand, emphasizes kinship and promotes independence between the spheres of

family life and schooling" (p. 82).

Middle-class parents also tend to have higher expectations for their children's

academic performance and higher career aspirations (Baker & Entwisle, 1987; Lareau,

1987; Rosen & D'Andrade, 1959; Toby, 1957). While the literature suggests that

academic and cognitive socialization are facilitated by middle-class status, considerable

research has shot.. , n that lower-class status does not necessarily predict less effective

parent practices. For example, Clark's (1983) ethnographic study of low income high

and low achieving African American children showed that high achieving children had

parents who stressed the value of education for their futures, monitored their ecadernic

progress closely, and fostered an internal sense of control ttnd responsibility over

academic outcomes (see also Boardman, Harrington, & Horowitz, 19i3). Similarly, in

a study of achievement motivation in Chinese-, Southeast Asian-, Korean- and

5

Caucasian-American fifth and sixth graders, Bempechat, Mordkowitz, Wu, Morison, &

Ginsburg (1989) found that, regardless of ethnicity and social class, high achievement

was associated with intense educational socialization, including close supervision of

school progress.

Epstein (1989) has examined home factors that contribute to academic

achievement. She argues that differences in children's motivation and learning can be

partly accounted for by the degree to which the environments of the school and the

home overlap. Her model of educational socialization (TARGET Structures) identifies

six interrelated aspects of the home environment that are conducive to academic

achievement:

1. Task structure, or the variety of activities, including intellectual

activities, that children participate in at home. The literature suggests

that preschoolers who are actively prepared for school are more ready

for its formal onset, have more initially positive attitudes, and

experience fewer grade retentions.

2. Authority structure, or the degree to which children have

responsibilities and participate in family decision-making.

Authoritative, rather than permissive or authoritarian, parenting is

associated with independent and exploratory behavior in young and

older children.

3. Reward structure, or the ways in which parents recognize advances in

learning. Epstein suggests that, particularly when children begin

formal schooling, parents are unsure of how best to reward children

for intellectual progress.

4. Grouping structure, or the ways in which parents influence the child's

interactions with family members and peers. Epstein proposes :1..tt

schools can do more to help parents make use of the peer group in

socializing academic achievement.

6

1 i

5. Evaluation structure, or parental standards for and means of judging

performance. Clear and realistic standards that are communicated

warmly and constructively can foster motivation.

6. Time structure, or the ways in which parents manage children's time

for schoolwork and other activities. Parents that manage children's

time effectively support the col.ipletion of both school and non-

school related tasks.

In sum, the literature supports the view that parental cognitive and academic

socialization practices can foster children's academic achievement. Given that middle-

class paint appear to have both the material and social resources to implement such

practices., researchers have examined the degree to which can we enhance the

achievement of educationally disadvantaged children through patent education

programs. This issue is explored below.

PARENT EDUCATION

The acctunulated evidence suggests that children's cognitive development

benefits from programs that disseminate child development information to their parents

and helps parents further their own education and enhance their job skills (Becher, in

Henderson, 1987; Clarke-Stewart, 1983; Comer, 1980; 1986; Dokecki, Hargrove, &

Sandler, 1983; Zeller, 1983; Olmsted & Rubin, 1983). For example, parent

involvement was a major focus of the nation-wide Follow Through (FT) program,

established in 1967 for low gnome kindergarten and first graders to sustain the gains

made in preschool compensatory education programs. Evaluations of the various FT

models showed that participating parents learned both how to help their children with

school -work and also improve their own job skills (Olmsted & Rubin, 1983). They

tended to become more involved in their children's academic progress, and their

children showed gains in cognitive skills. James Comer (1985) reported that many

low income parents participating in a parent involvement program became role models

for their children by virtue of continuing their own education, taking new jobs, and

eventually leaving the welfare roles.

7

12

Parent education is one of the major foundations for an innovative

intervention program in Chicago, The Beethoven Project. Housed in the nation's

largest public housing project, the Robert Taylor Homes, this program provides pre-

and post-natal care to mothers, in an effort to enhance children's acadeniic success

when they begin formal schooling at the neighborhood Beethoven Elementary Schcol.

The program emphasizes child development training and continuing education for

mothers. The first wave of children in this five-year project will begin kindergarten in

September, 1992.

PARENT INVOLVEMENT PROGRAMS: STRUCTURE ANDEFFECTIVENESS

A variety ottechniques exist for involving parents in their children's

education. These range from parent-school contacts (parent-teacher conferences, notes

home) to parent training to parent involvement in school policy (Barth, 1979; Becker

& Epstein, 1982; Moles, 1982). In a survey of 3700 first, third and fifth grade

teachers, Becker & Epstein (1982) found that teachers' techniques for involving

parents in their children's schooling fell into five broad categories: (1) reading

activities, (2) learning through discussion, (3) suggestions for home activities (i.e.,

supervision and review of homework), (4) contracts between parents and teachers (i.e.,

concerning rewards and punishments), and (5) techniques to foster parents' tutoring

skills.

Epstein (1988) suggests that a comprehensive program of parent involvement

should include: (1) techniques to help parents create home environments conducive to

learning, (2) frequent and clear communications from teachers to parents about pupil

progress, (3) the use of parents as resources in school (i.e., volunteers), (4) teacher

assistance with educational activities in the home, P,Sid (5) involvement in school

governance, through such vehicles as the PTA.

The evidence suggests that parent involvement programs have a positive

impact on children's achievement (Henderson, 1988). Parents who maintain frequent

contact with the school have higher achieving children than parents who have

infrequent contact. And, schools that are well-connected with the community tend to

have higher achieving students than schools with fewer ties. Parents who become

involved in their children's schooling tend to develop positive attitudes towards their

8

13

children's teachers. They rate teachers higher in interpersonal and teaching skills,

perceive them as wanting them to help their children and as very helpful in suggesting

oas for home activities (Epstein, 1987). Involved parents also tend to enlist the

support of others, become actively involved in community issues, and further their own

education (Becher, in Henderson, 1987).

Parent involvement programs have been empirically examined in a variety of

studies (Barth, 1979; Epstein, 1987; Fehrmann, Keith, & Reimers, 1987; Kanaker,

1972; Walberg, Bole, & Waxman, 1980). For example, Walberg et al. (1980)

examined a school-wide program (K-6) in which parents signed a contract, pledging to

set high expectations, provide an appropriate study environment, encourage learning by

discussing schoolwork daily, and cooperate with, teachers in matters related to

discipline. Results showed that classes differed in the extent to which teachers

themselves embraced the program. In classes where teachers made intensive efforts to

involve parents, classes gained about . 1 grade level in reading. In classes with less

involved parents, the reading gain was 0.5 of a grade level.

In an ongoing study of first, third, and fifth grade teachers, principals, parents,

and students, Epstein (1987) reported a positive relationship between the frequency

with which teachers encouraged parent involvement and reading gains for all students.

In addition, fifth graders developed more positive attitudes towards school and

completed more homework'on weekends.

In addition to examining parent involvement behaviors, some researchers have

explored the effect of children's perceptions of their parents' involvement on academic

outcomes. Keith and his colleagues (Fehrmann, et al., 1987; Keith, Reimers,

Fehrmann, Pottebaum, & Aubey, 1986) defined parent involvement as actual or

perceived expectations for performance, verbal encouragement or interactions regarding

homework, direct reinforcement for academic improvement, and general academic

guidance or support. Using the 1980 wave of the High School and Beyond (HSB)

data set, they found that perceived parent involvement had a positive effect on

students' grades.

Bempechat and her colleagues (Bempechat et al., 1989) developed the

Educational Socialization Scale (ESS) to tap children's perceptions of their parents'

9

L-

academic and cognitive socialization practices, as well as of parents' control over

after-school time. They found that, regardless of social class or ethnicity, math

achievement was positively correlated with perceptions of frequent and intense

educational socialization and perceptions of high control. Thus, the evidence suggests

that close supervision and high support for academic activities am important factors in

school achievement.

THE ROLE OF THE TEACHER IN PARENT INVOLVEMENT

As mentioned earlier, parent involvement appears to blossom when teachers

are intensely committed to the idea. While most teachers and school administrators

are in favor of greater parent participation in children's schooling, some obstacles

exist. For example, teachers report that while they engage in traditional means of

parent-teacher communication (i.e., notices home, interactions during parent-teacher

nights), many do not go beyond such attempts (Becker & Epstein, 1982). They admit

to not knowing the best way(s) to get parents involved in their children's education.

This corroborates findings tro,n a recent survey of teacher educators, which showed

that there is a paucity of teacher training in parent involvement (Chavkin & Williams,

1988). In a sample of over 4000 teacher educators, 65 per cent revealed that they

either discuss the issue casually or devote only one class period to the topic.

Many teachers worry that parents, particularly low income parents, may not

have enough time, training, or education themselves to help their children with

schoolwork (Becker & Epstein, 1982; Epstein & Becker, 1982; McLaughlin & Shields,

1987; Moles, 1982). Moles (1982) reports that many teachers also have low

expectations that parents will follow through on commitments to help their children

with schoolwork.

Researchers, however, have documented the fact that low income patents do

want to help their children, are willing to be active participants in their children's

learning, and do implement suggestions offered by teachers (Berliner & Casanova,

1985; McLaughlin & Shields, 1987). Others have noted that many low income parents

care about their children's academic progress, but do not know how to help their

children (Berliner & Casanova, 1985; Lareau, 1987; Ogbu, 1989).

10

1 5

-..--....A

Seeley (1982) argues that parent involvement might be facilitated if the

relationship between parents and teachers became a true partnership based on mutual

sharing, helping, and accountability. He contends that as long as schools see the

parents' role as cne of background support (i.e., providing food, clothing, and shelter)

the current relationship between parents and teachers will remain unequal and based on

assumptions of power.

CONCLUSIONS

Thus, the accumulated evidence supports the importance of parent

involvement in children's education. Some parents have the skills to foster both

cognitive growth and achievement motivation. More importantly, parents who do not

have these skills can readily acquire them. The research shows that when teachers and

educational administrators are strongly committed to drawing parents into their

children's education, the academic outcomes for children can be very positive.

11

16

REFERENCES

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1987). Mothers' beliefs about the role of ability and effort inschool learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 409-414.

Baker, D., & Entwisle, D. (1987). The influence of mothers on the academicexpectations of young children: A longitudinal study of how ganderdifferences arise. Social Forces, 6S, 670-694.

Baker, D., & Stevenson, D. (1986). Mothers' strategies for children's schoolachievement Managing the transition to high school. Sociology ofEducation, 59, 156-166.

Barth, R. (1979). Home-based reinforcement of school behavior: A review andanalysis. Review of Educational Research, 49, 436-458.

Becker, IL, & Epstein, J. (1982). Parent involvement A survey of teacher practices.The Elementary School Journal, 83, 85-102.

Bee, H., Barnard, K., Eyres, S., Gray, C., Hammond, M., Spietz, A., Snyder, C., &Clark, B. (1982). Prediction of IQ and language skills from perinatal status,child performance, family characteristics, and mother-infant interaction. ChildDevelopment, 53, 44-75.

Bempechat, J., & Ginsburg, IL (1989). Underachievement and educationaldisadvantage: The home and school experience of at-risk youth. UrbanDiversity Series No. 99. New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education,Teachers College, Columbia University.

Bempechat, J., Mordkowitz, E., Wu, J., Morison, M., & Ginsburg, H. (1989, April).Achievement motivation in Cambodian refugee children: A comparative study.Paper presented at.the Biennial conference of the Society for Research inChild Development, Kansas City.

Bempechat, J., & Wells, A. S. (1989). Promoting the achievement of at-risk students.Trends and Issues No. 13. New York ERIC Clearinghouse on UrbanEducation, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Berliner, D., & Casanova, U. (1985, October 20). Is parent involvement worth theeffort? Instructor, 20-21.

Bloom, B. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine Books.

Boardman, S., Harrington, C., & Horowitz, S. (1987). Successful women: Apsychological investigation of family, class and education. In B. Gutek & LLinvood (Eds.), Women's career development. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Chavkin, N., & Williams, D. (1988). Critical issues in teacher training for parentinvolvement. Educational Horizons, 66, 87-89.

Clark, R. (1983). Family life and school achievement: Whypoor black childrensucceed and fail. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

12

17

Clarke-Stewart, A. (1983). Exploring the assumptions of parent education. In R.Haskins & D. Adams (Eds.), Parent education and public policy. Norwood,NJ: Ablex. .

Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, 'A., Weinfeld, F., &York, R. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Government Printing Office.

Comer, J. (1980). School power: Implications of an intervention project. New York:The Free Press.

Comer, J. (1986, February). Parent participation in the schools. Phi Delta Kappan,442-226.

Dokecki, P., Hargrove, E., & Sandler, M. (1983). An overview of the parent childdevelopment center social experiment. In R. Haskins & D. Adams (Eds.),Parent education and public policy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Dunton, K., McDevitt, T., & Hess, R. (1988). Origins of mothers' attributions abouttheir daughters' and sons' performance in mathematics in sixth grade.Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 34, 47-70.

Dweck, C.S., & Bempechat, J. (1983). Children's theories of intelligence:Consequences for learning. In S.G. Paris, G.M. Olson, & H.W. Stevenson(Eds.), Learning and Motivation in the Classroom. Ifillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Eccles, J. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. Spence (Ed.),Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and social approaches.New York: Freeman.

Entwisle, D., Alexander, K., Pallas, A., & Cadigan, D. (1987). The emergentacademic self-image of first graders: Its response to social structure. ChildDevelopment, 58, 1190-1206.

Entwisle, D., & Hayduk, L. (11;STI. Lasting effects of elementary school. Sociologyof Education, 61, 147-159.

Epstein, J. (in press). Single parents and the schools: Effects of marital status onparent and teacher interactions. In M. Hallinan (Ed.), Change in societalinstitutions. New York: Plenum.

Epstein; J. (1989). Family structures and student motivation: A developmentalperspective. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation ineducation, V. 3: Goals and cognitions. New York: Academic Press.

Epstein, J. (1988). How do we improve programs for parent involvement?Educational Horizons, 66, 58-59.

Epstein, J. (1987). Toward a theory of family-school connections: Teacher practicesand parent involvement. In K. Kurrelmann, F. Kaufmann, & F. Lasel (Eds.),Social intervention: Potential and constraints. New York: De Gruyter.

13

Epstein, J., & Becker, H. (1982). Teachers' reported practices of parent involvementProblems and possibilities. The Elementary School Journal, 83, 103-113.

Fehrmann, P., Keith, T., & Reimers, T. (1987). Home influences on school learning:Direct and indirect effects of parental involvement on high school grades.Journal of Educational Research, 80, 330-337.

Ginsberg, H., Bempechat, J., & Chung, E. (in press). Parent influences on children'smathematics. In T. Sticht (Ed.), The intergenerational transfer of cognitiveskills. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Haggard, E. (1957, Winter). Socialization, personality, and academic achievement ingifted children. The School. Review.

Henderson, A. (1987). The evidence continues to grow: Parent involvement improvesstudent achievement. Columbia, MD: National Committee for Citizens inEducation.

Henderson, A. (1988, October). Parents are a school's best friend. Phi Delta Kappan,148-153.

Henderson, R. (1981). Home environment and intellectual performance. In R.Henderson (Ed.), Parent-child interaction: Theory, research and prospects.New York: Academic Press.

Hess, R., & Shipman, V. (1965). Early experience and the socialization of cognitivemodes in children. Child Development, 36, 869-886.

Holloway, S., & Hess, R. (1985). Mothers' and teachers' attributions about children'smathematics performance. In L Sigel (Ed.), Parent belief systems. Hillsdale,NJ: Eribaum.

Karraker, R. (1972). Increasing academic performance through home-managedcontingency programs. Journal of School Psychology, 10, 173-179.

Keith, T., Reimers, T., Fehnnann, P., Pottebaum, S., & Aubey, L. (1986). Parentinvolvement, homework, and TV time: Direct and indirect effects on highschool achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 373-380.

Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relatior.ships Theimportance of cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60, 73-85.

Lefler, H. (1983). Parent education and involvement in relation to the schools and toparents of school -aged children. In R. Haskins & D. Adams (Eds.), Parenteducation and public policy. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.

Marjoribanks, K. (1979). Ethnic families and children's achievements. Sydney: Allen& Unwin.

14

1 9

McDevitt, T., & Hess, R. (1985). Children's beliefs as a route of influence betweenmothers' direct control techniques and children's achievement in mathematics.Paper presented at the Biennial conference of the Society for Research inChild Development, Toronto.

McGillicuddy-DeLisi, A. (1985). The relationship between parental beliefs andchildren's cognitive level. In I. Sigel (Ed.), Parental belief systems.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

McGillicuddy-DeLisi, A., DeLisi, R., Flaugher, J., & Sigel, I. (1986). Familialinfluences on planning. In J. Kagan (Ed.), Blueprints for thinking.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McKnight, C., Crosswhite, F., Dossey, J., Kifer, E., Swafford, J., Travers, K., &Cooney, T. (1987). The underachieving curriculum: Assessing U.S. schoolmathematics from an international perspective. Champaign, IL: StipesPublishing Company.

McLaughlin, M., & Shields, P. (1987, October). Involving low income parents in theschools: A role for policy? Phi Delta Kappan.

Miller, S. (1986). Parent's beliefs about their children's cognitive abilities.Developmental Psychology, 22, 276-284.

Milne, A., Myers, D., Rosenthal, A., & Ginsburg, A. (1986). Single parents, workingmothers, and the educational achievement of school children. Sociology ofEducation, 59, 125-139.

Moles, 0. (1982, November). Synthesis of recent research on parent participation inchildren's education. Educational Leadership, 44-47.

Ogbu, J. (1989). Academic socialization of blrick children: An inoculation againstfuture failure. Paper presented at the Biennial Conference of the Society forresearch in Child Development, Kansas City.

Olmstead, P., & Rubin, R. t v:)83). Parent involvement Perspectives from the Follow-Through experience. In R. Haskins & D. Adams (Eds.), Parent educationand public policy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Pallas, A., Natrielt; C., & McDill, E. (1989). The changing nature of thedisadvantaged population: Current dimensions and future trends. EducationalResearcher, 18:16-22.

Parsons, 3., Adler, T., & Kaczala, C. (1982). Socialization of achievement attitudesand beliefs: Parental influences. Child Development, 53, 310-321.

Phillips, D. (1987). Socialization of perceived academic competence among highlycompetent children. Child Development, 58, 1308-1320.

15

20

Rogoff, B., & Gardner, W. (1984). Adult guidance of everyday cognition. In B.Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in socialcontext. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Rosen, B., & D'Andrade, R. (1959). Tr. psychosocial origins 'of achievementmotivation. Sociometry, 22, 185-218.

Seeley, D. (1982, November). Education through partnership. EducationalLeadership, 42-43.

Seginer, R. (1983). Parents' educational expectations and children; academicachievements: A literature review. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 1-23.

Sigel, I. (1982). The relationship between parental distancing strategies and the child'scognitive behavior. In L. Laosa & I. Sigel (Eds.), Families as learningenvironments for children. New York: Plenum Press.

Sigel, L (1985). A conceptual analysis of beliefs. In I. Sigel (Ed.), Parental beliefsystems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sigel, I., & Olmsted, P. (1971). The development of classification and representationalcompetence. In I. Gorden (Ed.), Readings in research in developmentalpsychology. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman.

Stevenson, D., & Baker, D. (1987). The family-school relation and the child's schoolperformance. Child Development, 58, 1348-1357.

Stevenson, H., Lee, S., &Stigler, J. (1986). Matheivatics achievement of Chinese,Japanese and American children. Science, 231, 693-699.

Toby, J. (1957). Orientation to education as factor in the school maladjustment oflower class children. Social Forces, 35, 259-266.

U.S. Department of Education. (1986). What works: Research about teaching andlearning. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Wagner, D., & Sprat, J. (1988). Intergenerational literacy: Effects of parental literacyand attitudes on children's reading achievement in Morocco. HumanDevelopment, 31, 359-369.

Walberg, H., Bole, R., & Waxman, H. (1980). School-based family socialization andreading achievement in the inner city. Psychology in the Schools, 17, 509-514.

16

21